Comment on "comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: An evaluation under field and laboratory conditions" by Long et al. (2021)

5Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Long et al. (2021) conducted a detailed study of possible interferences in measurements of surface O3 by UV spectroscopy, which measures the UV transmission in ambient and O3-scrubbed air. While we appreciate the careful work done in this analysis, there were several omissions, and in one case, the type of scrubber used was misidentified as manganese dioxide (MnO2) when in fact it was manganese chloride (MnCl2). This misidentification led to the erroneous conclusion that all UV-based O3 instruments employing solid-phase catalytic scrubbers exhibit significant positive artifacts, whereas previous research found this not to be the case when employing MnO2 scrubber types. While the Long et al. (2021) study, and our results, confirm the substantial bias in instruments employing an MnCl2 scrubber, a replication of the earlier work with an MnO2 scrubber type and no humidity correction is needed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bernays, N., Jaffe, D. A., Petropavlovskikh, I., & Effertz, P. (2022, May 25). Comment on “comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: An evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021). Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. Copernicus GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3189-2022

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free